Return of democratic rule

THERE must be a sense of relief over the relatively smooth transfer of power from military to civilian rule in Pakistan. Mir Zafarullah Khan Jamali of the Pakistan Muslim League (Q) has received sufficient support in the National Assembly which should enable him to form a coalition government.

No doubt, there will be some scepticism about the stability and duration of Prime Minister Jamali’s government which could depend on several factors, some of which would be in his control while some would be out of his control.

However, given a sense of responsibility and accommodation on the part of the members of parliament, as also on the part of President Pervez Musharraf, there is no reason why a stable government cannot be formed by Mr. Jamali. Clearly, that would be in the best interest of Pakistan.

The fractured mandate given by the electorate did create serious difficulties in the formation of a civilian government. For over a month, the country witnessed protracted negotiations between the three major political parties, and bargaining with the minor ones, that gave rise to considerable anxiety and uncertainty. In the event of a deadlock, the return of democracy could have been abortive, with the possibility of dissolution of parliament and protests in the streets.

Commonsense suggested — as the PPP dissenter, Faisal Saleh Hayat, has rightly pointed out — that such an eventuality had to be avoided at all costs. The important thing at this stage is securing the transfer of power from the military to a civilian set-up and anything which prevents this is neither in the interest of democracy nor of the country at large.

There remains, of course, the controversy about the Legal Framework Order and its incorporation in the Constitution. The fact of the matter is that most of the provisions of the LFO have been actually followed by all concerned, including the objectors. The recent elections were held in accordance with the LFO. The age of the voter has been reduced from 21 to 18; the size of the parliament and provincial assemblies has been expanded; more seats have been kept for women; joint electorates have been the basis of elections; and the graduation qualification for election has been observed.

The critics of the LFO should ponder the consequences its rejection. It would mean the entire electoral process which has produced the present parliament and assemblies is null and void, resulting in total confusion in the country.

On the other hand, President Musharraf should also try to reduce the areas of criticism of the LFO. For instance, while holding the office of president — now that civilian rule has been restored — he should give up the post of army chief, as holding both posts seems incongruous in any kind of democracy. He must also live up to his repeated assurances that the civilian prime minister will have all the powers of the chief executive and there will be no interference from the presidency.

In all fairness, President Musharraf should be given credit for holding general elections within the timeframe approved by the Supreme Court, and for handing over power smoothly to the civilian administration. The allegations about rigged elections are nothing new in this country as the losers never seem to accept their defeat in good grace.

Some of the allegations are indeed quite amusing. For instance, Benazir Bhutto has been alleging that the regime rigged the election to secure seats for the religious fundamentalists, the MMA, which has turned out to be the severest critic of Musharraf. Similarly, some of the top figures of the so-called King’s party — PML (Q) — were defeated, including party chief Mian Azhar, Ilahi Bux Soomro, and Fakhr Imam, despite the alleged manoeuvring by the regime.

Moreover, despite the allegations of rigging, no party has had any hesitation in holding talks with the others for formation of government. What these critics do not realize is that such wild accusations about the conduct of our elections only give a bad name to Pakistan abroad, feed India’s anti-Pakistan propaganda and, more importantly, demoralize the Pakistani voter and the general public.

The success of PML(Q) in formation of government should ensure continuity in the country’s foreign policy. This will be very reassuring for many of our friends abroad, including the US and the West, China, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Japan and Afghanistan, among others. Our security concerns and economic welfare are dependent on maintaining a good equation with these countries.

These ties would have come under strain, if not altogether jeopardized, under an MMA-led government. Moreover, our traditionally difficult relations with India could have taken a turn for the worse as the MMA includes believers of jihadist policies. Their approach would have produced new allegations of “cross-border terrorism” from India. The Karzai regime in Afghanistan would also have been alarmed at the coming to power in Pakistan of the supporters of the Taliban. Of course, there are those who believe that the MMA would have moderated its policies once it came to power. However, that would really have been hoping against hope. Ideological parties always find it difficult to change their colours, as their own followers would have accused them of betrayal.

Similarly, there is a case for continuity of economic policies pursued by the Musharraf regime. The international financial institutions are all praise for these policies and most of the indicators of our economy are encouraging. For the critics to deny these facts is flying in the face of realities. No doubt, the country continues to face severe economic difficulties but certainly some progress has been made in resolving them. The reduction of corruption, at least in the highest echelons of government, is another creditable achievement of the outgoing regime. The NAB must continue its operations relentlessly and the Jamali government must not allow any considerations of political expediency to soften the anti-corruption campaign.

Fortunately, Prime Minister Jamali comes across as a balanced and dignified leader who is open to dialogue with the opposition. His comments so far on internal and external issues and policies have been measured and reassuring. He has a difficult task ahead. The presence of a strong opposition in the parliament is both a challenge and an opportunity. He will have to be on top of his job to keep the critics at bay.

Pakistan is not an easy country to govern and indeed some have called it ungovernable. We need to develop traditions of patience and tolerance, moderation and realism. The policies of confrontation, personal agendas and outright falsification with a view to bringing down opponents have done great harm to this country.

We are again at the crossroads. Are we going to have a stable Pakistan with a smoothly running democratic system, or are again going to repeat the mistakes of the past and go round in circles?

Much depends on our newly elected representatives and how they conduct themselves. The country’s hopes and good wishes are with Prime Minister Jamali.

The writer is a former ambassador of Pakistan.

Modi brigade and starving millions: LETTER FROM NEW DELHI

GUJARAT is not the end of the world. I doubt whether the voters would favour Chief Minister Narendra Modi who has lowered not only their spiralling economic growth but also their image. Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee’s intervention to focus on issues “of development and governance” has stopped the BJP from harping on the recent carnage in the state. Modi himself says that he will not fight on the plank of the Godhara incident.

Even if the BJP wins in Gujarat, it does not mean that the hate wave which the party rides will spread to other parts of the country. The Hindutva appeal does not sell beyond the Hindi-speaking states. In Bihar, Laloo Yadav’s preserve, it does not. In fact, the caste factor determines elections in the Hindi-speaking states. Even in Gujarat, though it is not a Hindi-speaking state, caste has come to the fore.

True, left to the BJP, which is guided by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) on Gujarat, the Hindutva and the Italian birth of Congress president Sonia Gandhi would have been the party’s poll plank. The anti-Muslim rhetoric, which has characterized Modi’s yatras and his thought of displaying the replica of the burnt Godhra bogie, would have been grist to the election propaganda mill.

But Vajpayee has upset the applecart by pointing out that if “the Godhra or the post-Godhra violence” is recalled, “it will look as if there is no other issue and that the voters are being toyed with.” This has created confusion in the Hindutva ranks. Modi may still play the Hindu card. He thinks he can harvest the Hindu voters after having sown the seed of hatred against the minorities, especially the Muslims. Reports are that he does not want any central leader to campaign in his state because he believes he can win single-handedly.

And if he can do so, he will be able to stake one day his claim to the prime ministership. He is mistaken. He cannot take the Gujaratis for a ride any more because they can see through him. He does not enjoy even a fraction of the respect which Keshubhai Patel, his predecessor, commands. For obvious reasons, Modi has the support of the VHP which openly says that it prefers him to Vajpayee.

That the BJP should be on the side of the VHP is understandable. They are members of the same parivar, no matter what press statements by different leaders say. But how can the two behave in the same manner? While the VHP thrives on irresponsibility, the BJP leads the coalition at the centre and carries on its shoulders the task of running the country.

Still the two are so enmeshed that it is difficult to say which person is a member of which organization. It looks as if the VHP comes to the fore when the law is sought to be violated or when the purpose is to abuse the critics, denigrate the opposition or threaten the authorities. The BJP takes over when it comes to presenting a case a bit cogently since belligerency does not go down well. Their masks may be different, but they have the same faces.

The VHP says that the chief election commissioner (he is a Christian) has a “religious bias.” The VHP dubs him anti-Hindu. The BJP blames him for lack of restraint. The VHP says it will defy the ban on the yatra. The BJP defends the VHP’s right to launch the Vijay yatra to commemorate the demolition of the Babri masjid a decade ago. The BJP has the right to assert that every organization is free to carry out its programmes, but not pogroms.

The ruling BJP has to ensure that the extraconstitutional authority which the VHP and the Bajrang Dal are assuming, is curbed for the sake of governance, if not the country. From the point of view of the BJP, there is another factor it must guard against. If the extraconstitutional authority of the VHP and the Bajrang Dal is not curbed, they will become a Frankenstein’s monster which may devour the BJP one day. Bhindranwale during Indira Gandhi’s regime is a case in point.

The BJP and the VHP cannot wipe out the impression that they are two sides of the same coin. To call the VHP a religious or social organization is to hoodwink the public. The BJP leaders were hand in glove with the VHP in the demolition of the Babri masjid. The two are together, arm in arm, in the election campaign. The two have jointly selected the candidates for the Guajrat poll.

What is disturbing about the BJP-VHP strategy is the manner in which it is vitiating the atmosphere. Those who are against it are dubbed anti-national or ISI agents. It reminds me of McCarthyism, which swept America in the fifties and the sixties. Senator McCarthy ousted liberals from academic institutions, human rights activists and independent people from top government positions. The hullabaloo that the “communists” were dictating America’s policies and programmes made people afraid of their own shadow.

The Hindutva zealots are trying to create the same type of atmosphere in India. Fear is what they are trying to instil. To some extent they are succeeding. People are afraid to protest even when the treatment meted out to them is unjust. They increasingly believe that it does not pay to speak out.

Maybe, the noise is meant to push into the background the government’s failure on the economic front. More than half the population is poor and only a fraction enjoys the facilities which any country in the West takes for granted. India’s growth rate last year was around five per cent against the promised eight. It proposes to achieve one per cent of world trade in the next five years. What a target for the 10th Five-Year Plan! Worse are the reports on starvation.

The centre, with 60 million tonnes of food grains in its warehouses, cannot escape the responsibility of starvation deaths either in Orissa, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan. That the states have not a proper distribution system does not condone the negligence in not providing the alternatives.

The government has been hiding the truth on the ground that dietary preferences of people come in the way of sending food grains to some states. The centre can use the NGOs. They are the ones who forced the government to send its teams to these states. The teams have now confirmed deaths due to starvation.

The Supreme Court’s directive to the states remains unimplemented. Nearly one year ago it asked them to put in place the required administrative machinery to implement welfare schemes, particularly midday meals to school children. But Orissa is busy with politicking in the ruling Biju Janata Dal, Jharkhand with the Congress party’s infighting, Madhya Pradesh with its chief minister Digvijay Singh’s essays in ego and Rajasthan with chief minister Gehlot’s efforts to prove that the deaths were due to malnutrition, not starvation.

The BJP would do better if it were to pay attention to the basic problems, “governance and development,” as Vajpayee puts it.

If he cannot mend the ways of the party, who can? Once in a while he breaks his silence. Both people and his party notice it. Were he to do it more often, both will gain — the country as well as the BJP.

The writer is a columnist based in New Delhi.

Polls in Indian Kashmir

ELECTIONS do have a way of clearing the air, sometimes as with Turkey’s earlier this week, bringing in an entire new weather pattern. So it was too with last month’s election in Kashmir.

The Indian prime minister, Atal Behari Vajpayee, presiding over a government of Hindu nationalists, gave his opposition rival, the Congress party of Sonia Gandhi, tacit encouragement to form a coalition government with a local moderate Muslim party, the People’s Democratic Party.

Despite being scorned by the Congress secularists for too often playing the Hindu chauvinist card and despite being continuously browbeaten by the ultra nationalists, in particular the Bombay-based politician Bal Thackeray, who regularly threatens to bring down the prime minister, Vajpayee not only masterminded the first free election in Kashmir for as long as any one can remember, he has in effect handed over a large part of India’s Kashmir policy to those who don’t have much sympathy for his government.

For sure, policy vis-a-vis Pakistan and decisions on military deployments in Kashmir or up against the Pakistani border rest in New Delhi, but the local government in Kashmir does have a say on such important questions as whether to apply India’s draconian Prevention of Terrorism Act . It is also likely to release prisoners held on less serious charges and will be tough on atrocities carried out by Indian security forces, a long standing legitimate grievance of local people.

In 1948 newly independent Pakistan and India went to war over Kashmir. The UN was called in to mediate and a “line of control” was drawn between the one third of Kashmir (overwhelmingly Muslim) under Pakistani control and the two thirds under Indian control. The Indian controlled part, called Jammu and Kashmir, has a Hindu majority in Jammu, a Buddhist and Shia Muslim majority in Ladakh district and, in the most populous part, the central valley, a Muslim majority.

It is in this latter district that most of the tension against Indian rule spills over. In the last twelve years, as India has become more Hindu nationalist and as the Pakistan military has encouraged and licensed militants demobbed from the fight against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan to undermine Indian rule in its disputed province, the bloodletting has been ratcheted up and with it the military stakes.

Now, to cut a tortuous story short, India and Pakistan face each other with nuclear weapons, with some powerful voices arguing in the regular crises of confrontation to use them if the other side doesn’t back down. The American intelligence services have said repeatedly that humanity’s first nuclear war is most likely to be fought over Kashmir.

American academics and strategic thinkers have all sorts of good ideas for defusing the tensions that regularly blow up between India and Pakistan. It is suggested, for example, that the U.S. should use its capabilities with high tech monitoring to keep a close watch on the line of control so that violations are aired for all to see.

Even going further, that the UN Security Council should recognize the line of control as an international border. Some argue that the U.S. should beef up the much depleted Pakistani military so that there is a better, and therefore safer, balance of power. And that both sides should be offered America’s sophisticated technologies to control the misuse of nuclear weapons by rogue commanders or political factions.

All these have their use and the experts should go on debating them. But in truth the only thing that really works is elections and democracy. It is democracy that has finally broken the logjam on the Indian side. And if real democracy were allowed to return to Pakistan, it would introduce a flexibility on the Pakistani side that is just not there under military rule. — Copyright Jonathan Power

The poorest of the poor

BALOCHISTAN is the poorest province in the country and, Musakhel (Balochistan) the poorest district. Of the 100 districts in the country, 34 are in Punjab, 26 in Balochistan, 16 in Sindh and 24 in the NWFP. In Punjab, Rajanpur happens to be its poorest district, Badin is the highest on deprivation index out of 16 districts of Sindh and Kohistan is highest on deprivation index in the NWFP.

Out of 34 districts of Punjab, 10 or less than one-third fall under high deprivation category. Karachi is the least deprived district of Pakistan. Lahore is the least deprived district of Punjab and ranks second after Karachi on national level. Of the 24 districts of the NWFP, Peshawar is the least deprived whereas Quetta is the least deprived district of Balochistan.

Of the 10 least poor districts in Pakistan, seven are in Punjab and only the remaining three are equally distributed among the remaining three provinces. Punjab seems to have done better than the other three provinces of Pakistan with 83 per cent of its population being the least poor. This raises questions of equity and fairness in a federation and its sustainability.

According to distribution of provincial population by deprivation category, it is as high as 88 per cent for Balochistan, 51 per cent for NWFP, 31 per cent for Sindh and only 25 per cent for Punjab. It is the distribution in terms of rural and urban areas that is most striking. Contrary to the pattern, Balochistan has 100 per cent high deprivation rates for urban areas and 89 per cent for rural areas.

Sindh has 23 per cent for urban areas and 49 per cent for the rural areas. The NWFP has 60 per cent for urban areas and 25 per cent for rural areas. Punjab has 30 per cent for rural areas and 26 per cent for urban areas. Disparity between rural and urban areas in Punjab is minimal. Deprivation index takes into account four factors: education, housing quality and congestion, residential housing services and employment.

These are the findings of Social Policy and Development Centre (SDPC). The report goes on to say that, of the 100 districts in Pakistan more than half, (57) fall in the high deprivation category, 24 of them are in Balochistan. Punjab has the least number of districts in high deprivation category, 25 per cent of its population as against 88 for Balochistan, is in high deprivation category. Between the remaining two provinces, the NWFP is poorer than Sindh with 51 per cent of its population in the high deprivation category as compared to 31 per cent of Sindh.”

According to an Asian Development Bank (ADB) report on “Poverty in Pakistan” - Issues, Causes and Institutional Responses (July 2002),” the incidence of poverty increased from 26.6 per cent in FY 1993 to 32.2 per cent in 1999. Economic growth has slowed further, development spending has continued to decline and “it is highly likely that the incidence of poverty in Pakistan today is significantly higher than the FY in 1999”. Vulnerable elements have received little attention in poverty assessments. Vulnerability can be economic or social. Education is the most important factor separating the poor from the not-so-poor. Poor households on average have 75 per cent more children, most of whom do not receive any education and thereby perpetuate the cycle of poverty.

The government never tires of proclaiming at the top of its voice that it has brought about a revolution of sorts having accumulated foreign exchange reserves in excess of seven billion dollars, achieved economic stability and controlled inflation. One achievement of the government, which has received plaudits abroad but not at home is the control of inflation, which was brought down from 10.4 per cent per annum from 1996 to 4.4 per cent in 2001, resulting largely from improved macroeconomic and financial policy management. One has to suspend one’s belief to lend credence to these figures because any housewife will tell you the prices of grocery and other household goods have soared.

Eleven raises in electricity rates over the last year or two and similar raises in gas and petroleum prices have broken the backs of the middle classes. The pains of controlling inflation have not been shared by the ruling classes who claim the credit but by the poor and the miserable, who are mute and voiceless and cannot even cry for want of strength as a result of undernourishment, disease and hunger.

It is claimed that we are about to reach a stage where we will say adieu to the IMF and its cohorts and achieve economic independence. It fails to notice the stark reality on the ground, including strong anecdotal evidence that poverty has increased and the purchasing power of the people has declined. Stabilization has been achieved at the cost of the economically vulnerable and the poor. It is not only the anecdotal evidence that strongly points towards the misery of a large population, this fact is also clearly brought out by the UNDP.

According to UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHRA), poverty has touched new lows. Citing the case of one Rehmat Bibi, 67, a widow “who lives on private charity and a meagre monthly stipend from the government. Her total monthly income does not guarantee that she will sleep on a full stomach or be able to buy medicine”. It goes on to say that “Bibi’s case is typical of millions of impoverished in Pakistan”. Only some of them have access to the Zakat programme under which a destitute person is given just eight dollars (Rs. 480) per month, enough to buy a month’s supply of 40 kgs atta.

However, the reduction in the budget deficit was achieved at the expense of development spending, which was the lowest ever last year. The ADB report goes on to say “given the country’s high and rising level of poverty and its low level of human development, the government should significantly increase development spending”. The recipe recommended for achieving this objective, is to “focus on revenue enhancement, including reforms to improve revenue collection by broadening the tax base and strengthening tax administration”. Reforms end up costing a hefty packet and revenues refuse to rise. Stress on excising expenditure is either pro forma or lukewarm at best.

The SDPC report quotes an economics specialist as saying that the policy of stabilization of the economy came at the cost of growth and poverty. And while stabilization has contributed to the difficulties of the common man and increased poverty; it has been unable to draw foreign investment. According to another specialist, poverty reduction is primarily a function of employment generation, which itself is a function of growth investment.

Since the government has brought about reduction in poverty by resorting to the simple device of redefining poverty at Rs. 20 per capita per day income, it has adopted an attitude that not much needs to be done after this contrived mode of reduction has been accepted by lending agencies. A substantial proportion of rural labour force (almost 40 per cent) depends entirely on non-farm activities, which have been severely affected by low economic growth, coupled with a decline in public sector development spending.

The government has undertaken Khushal Pakistan Programme (KPP as an integrated small public works programme. It has started playing a direct role in providing micro finance services. The government had initiated. a similar programme under the name of Social Action Programme (SAP) in 1992 in two phases and the results have been assessed to be disappointing and ended in an increase in rural poverty. The poverty alleviation is impossible to achieve through programmes like SAP or KPP unless human development receives proper attention. The Asian Development Bank (ADB), in its keenness to justify fresh loans, has endorsed the government’s poverty reduction strategy. Disappointing results can be foretold with certainty. Failure of governance has to receive the highest attention before remedial measures could even be contemplated.

According to the ADB report on “Poverty in Pakistan” — Issues, Causes and Institutional Responses (July 2002)”, the rising poverty was the result of poor governance and slow economic growth.

The ADB in its publication “Outlook 2002”, has, on the other hand and without realizing the obvious contradiction in its own report quoted above, has complemented the government for its attempts “to rectify macro-economic imbalances and stabilize the economy in 2001” and for “significant improvement in macro-economic indicators”. The report goes on to say “prudent fiscal and monitory policies succeeded in reducing the budget deficit significantly”.

The forecast for the next year, according to Outlook 2002, is “that GDP growth is likely to be only slightly higher for the whole year than it was in 2001”. The prevailing uncertainty has led to further deterioration in the investment climate and effectively forestalled the privatization process, which could have released domestic resources for poverty alleviation. Although the report goes on to say that “if the government continues to follow sound macro-economic policies and implement the planned economic and governance reforms, it could fairly quickly achieve rapid and sustainable economic growth and poverty reduction”. And yet, there will be no relief to the poor either in Balochistan or Sindh or for that matter in the other two provinces. Growth does not automatically translate into transfer of resources to the vulnerable sections of the population.

It is difficult to agree with the self-serving prognosis of the ADB. Adherence to the policies mandated by the lending agencies will only increase poverty and misery and might unravel the whole process of development adopted at their behest. GDP growth, which does not necessarily lead to reduction in poverty in view of unequal development, is likely to be adversely affected on account of expected lower crops of cotton and rice as a consequence of pest attacks. The break in the spell of drought this year might have some beneficial effect on agriculture and GDP growth may turn out to be better. But then, the poverty will not have been alleviated.

E-mail: sshusain@hotmail.com